Here is a capture of the latest version (lastest web-build), think I got to leave it at that for now:
The BRAWL² Tournament Challenge has been announced!
It starts May 12, and ends Oct 17. Let's see what you got!
https://polycount.com/discussion/237047/the-brawl²-tournament
It starts May 12, and ends Oct 17. Let's see what you got!
https://polycount.com/discussion/237047/the-brawl²-tournament
Best Of
Re: Sketchbook: Frank Polygon
Subdivision sketch: cylindrical grip.
This is a brief overview of a couple ways to streamline poly modeling and a quick visual comparison of a few high poly workflows.
There's a lot of different ways to approach poly modeling but most artists usually start out with the basics: inserting primitives, cutting in edges, then pushing and pulling the geometry into shape while using basic modeling operations like loop cut, loop slide, extrude, inset, bevel / chamfer, etc.
In some ways this is a very direct and linear process, so while the modeling tools and order of operations might vary, it tends to be a relatively intuitive workflow that's fairly easy to pick up. There's certainly nothing wrong with this approach either: manually creating mesh components and destructive editing tends to work well for modeling simple, irregular, or organic shapes but it can sometimes be a real struggle when it comes to complex hard surface models with repetitive features. Especially when those repetitive features have subtle differences or are part of complex shape intersections.
There's a lot of different ways to approach poly modeling but most artists usually start out with the basics: inserting primitives, cutting in edges, then pushing and pulling the geometry into shape while using basic modeling operations like loop cut, loop slide, extrude, inset, bevel / chamfer, etc.
In some ways this is a very direct and linear process, so while the modeling tools and order of operations might vary, it tends to be a relatively intuitive workflow that's fairly easy to pick up. There's certainly nothing wrong with this approach either: manually creating mesh components and destructive editing tends to work well for modeling simple, irregular, or organic shapes but it can sometimes be a real struggle when it comes to complex hard surface models with repetitive features. Especially when those repetitive features have subtle differences or are part of complex shape intersections.
Below is an example of what a basic poly modeling approach might look like on a relatively simple part with some repetitive features.
Block out the major form with a primitive, loop cut, then inset to create depth and round off the secondary shape profiles with a bevel / chamfer operation. Create the rest of the secondary features with simple operations like extrude and spin. Smaller tertiary details could either be manually created using the same loop cut and extrude process or by boolean subtracting another mesh. Clean up and simply the mesh as required.
Again, there's a lot of different ways to approach modeling this. Which
means it's less about the order of operations and more about
the total number of steps needed to create the base mesh and there's
always the question: What happens if the shapes need to be corrected or
the mesh density needs to be changed? With basic poly modeling the
answer to usually ends up being either manually adjusting the
mesh or completely re-modeling the part from scratch. Depending on the size problem that rework could be anything from a slight annoyance to a major time sink.
Mirroring the mesh is an easy way to reduce repetitive work but it's possible to take this a step further by splitting the mesh down into tileable sections for each repetitive feature set. Adding an array modifier to these tileable mesh sections is a quick way to copy and merge them. With the added benefit that any edits to the original will automatically propagate to all the copies.
The example below shows what poly modeling those tileable mesh sections could look like. Insert a basic open cylinder primitive, delete the unnecessary segments, extrude upwards to create the flat features, then add a loop cut and scale it up from the center origin point to create the major diameter of the ribbed section and use a bevel / chamfer modifier controlled by edge weights or vertex groups to create the round over.
Here's a wider view of what the process looks like once the array modifier is added.
Define the larger primary forms of the major diameter first then extrude the edge along the minor diameter outwards to fill in recessed section between the ribs. Round off the corners of the first and last segment of the array with another bevel / chamfer modifier and that's it for the primary and secondary shapes. The rest of the tertiary shapes can be added with a series of boolean modifiers.
In this example the larger primary forms were created quickly with basic [destructive] poly modeling operations but since it's tileable and all of the secondary and tertiary details are generated by modifiers it's fairly easy to edit everything without having to do a lot of repetitive re-work. Though not ideal, it's even possible to destructively change the segment count of the primary forms by simply re-spinning the center edge profile up to where it meets the flat features at the top of the model.
Streamlining polygonal modeling with non-destructive parametric mesh primitives and modifiers like boolean, bevel / chamfer, deform, etc. take this concept a step further. Once the primary shapes are established, the curvature and mesh density of almost every single surface is independently adjustable throughout most of the block out process. Which makes it a lot easier to line up the segments for subdivision modeling and a lot of this flexibility also carries over into the base mesh for modifier based subdivision and single application re-meshing high poly workflows.
The example below shows what this process could look like.
Intersect cylinder primitives with a simple editable mesh that outlines the internal features of the flat areas at the top of the grip then round off the corners of that rectangular portion of the mesh primitive using a bevel / chamfer modifier. Add a torus primitive and use an array modifier to copy it along the length of the cylinder primitive then boolean union them to create the ribs. Use additional primitives and boolean operations to add the smaller tertiary cut out details.
Better references and thorough block outs do help prevent the kinds of problems that often require completely reworking large sections of a model but sometimes certain features just need to be adjusted. Especially when it comes to refining the visual read of shapes in vague and unpolished concepts or when there's a limited amount of reference material available.
This approach doesn't have to be all or nothing either: sometimes it only makes sense to make certain features non-destructive. So try to anticipate what parts of the model may need to be changed and plan accordingly.
Another advantage to this kind of streamlined poly modeling workflow is that, regardless of the final high poly process, the low poly model is essentially "free" because of how easy it is to generate different base meshes from the same model. As shown in the example below.
All three workflow examples generate the same exact base mesh. So, which approach to poly modeling makes the most sense? Well that all depends:
- What's the model for?
- What's the available tool set?
- What's the chance the model will need significant changes?
Sometimes the most direct approach [destructive editing] is the quickest and easiest.
Other times it's much easier to rely on parametric primitives and
modifiers to generate surface features with accurate and consistent geometry. Sometimes it's nice
to have some flexibility when it comes to easily adjusting shapes and mesh
density.
What makes sense for one part of the model may not make sense for another. So it often just comes down to balancing accuracy, effort, and flexibility. I.e. how much work it takes to create the shapes and how easy it is to
change things like curvature, mesh density, proportions, etc. without
having to re-do a lot of the existing work.
A similar streamlined modeling approach can also be used to generate the high poly model.
Below is an example of a modifier based subdivision workflow. A fairly simple base mesh, previously
generated by the parametric primitive and boolean block out workflow,
has all the support loops generated automatically by a bevel / chamfer
modifier that's controlled by edge weights. Which means the base mesh is fairly easy to edit and the width of those support loops can be changed by simply adjusting the width parameters in the modifier panel.
Below is an example of a single application modeling, re-meshing, and smoothing workflow in Blender. The same parametric primitive and boolean block out is used to generate a denser base mesh then voxel remeshing and corrective smooth modifiers added to polish the surface. Without creating micro bevels there's a distinct lack of variable edge width but any changes to the primitives, modifiers, and meshes that drive the remeshing modifier are almost immediate and there's no need to export the base mesh or switch apps to generate a bakeable high poly for game art.
Below is an example of a DynaMesh and polish workflow. The same denser base mesh from the previous example is exported to ZBrush for a DynaMesh pass then followed up with polish by group and polish by crisp edges. For most game art workflows the high poly model still needs to be decimated and exported out of ZBrush for baking.
High poly comparison, left to right: Subdivision @ 2x or 180K.tri, Blender remesh + smooth @ 7M.tri, ZBrush DynaMesh + polish @ 7M.tri
Overall the subdivision high poly is clean with minimal smoothing artifacts. The single application re-meshing and smoothing workflow in Blender produces a high poly that's mostly smooth but does have some subtle crunchiness in spots. Surface quality of the high poly generated by the ZBrush DynaMesh and polish workflow is mostly on par with the subdivision high poly.
All the results are more than passable for high to low poly baking. Especially when considering the material has a moderately rough surface texture and the part will be relatively small when viewed from a first person perspective. There's some amount of variability in the high poly workflows but overall it's fairly representative of what can be expected in most cases.
Recap: look for ways to automate or reduce repetitive modeling tasks by sectioning the mesh into tileable sections, offloading modeling operations to modifiers, and leveraging the flexibility of parametric primitives. Consider whether each part of the model needs to be simple, quick, or flexible, and adjust the workflow for each part accordingly.
Here's a couple of links to other write-ups that explore streamlined poly modeling and modifier based subdivision workflows a bit further:
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2779298/#Comment_2779298https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2773644/#Comment_2773644
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2779584/#Comment_2779584
FrankPolygon
3 ·
Re: Interior with Hero Asset WIP Log : Pirate's Tavern
Nice work on the lighting!
There's still a lot of noise, is this a stylistic choice?
I would love to see more care taken with the roughness texturing. The reflections are very even and bland right now. The wood is flat, especially the bowl and table top, but so are the metals, and the food. There could be grog spills, food grease, etc. to make the lighting reflections pop.
There's still a lot of noise, is this a stylistic choice?
I would love to see more care taken with the roughness texturing. The reflections are very even and bland right now. The wood is flat, especially the bowl and table top, but so are the metals, and the food. There could be grog spills, food grease, etc. to make the lighting reflections pop.
Eric Chadwick
4 ·
Re: Interior with Hero Asset WIP Log : Pirate's Tavern
Thanks for the amazing feedback @Eric Chadwick @Celosia @zetheros ! I decided to redo my lighting and try to follow more to the reference given by @Eric Chadwick, and here is my current progress . Thanks @zetheros too for the great sources , unfortunately i dont have much time left to my assignment submission but its definitely useful and i shouldve followed realisticly more as i was using a shellguard cutlass for reference
RafeYapJingMing
3 ·
Re: The Bi-Monthly Environment Art Challenge | November - December (99)
Hi! @fairlyBread nice progress on the texturing 
Imo totally fine to continue working on it after the deadline, hope you get around to finish it. It was a pleasure working on the challenge alongside you, until next time 
That bake issue is curious :-B Could try if triangulating that area fixes anything (if you haven't already done so). If you want a second pair of eyes on it, feel free to share that part by attaching a zip to post or pm.
With some new work starting tomorrow, I tried to wrap it up. Quite some tweaking and builds happened since my last update, so I'll write what I can remember :P
(hope the video shows :P)
Imo totally fine to continue working on it after the deadline, hope you get around to finish it. It was a pleasure working on the challenge alongside you, until next time That bake issue is curious :-B Could try if triangulating that area fixes anything (if you haven't already done so). If you want a second pair of eyes on it, feel free to share that part by attaching a zip to post or pm.
With some new work starting tomorrow, I tried to wrap it up. Quite some tweaking and builds happened since my last update, so I'll write what I can remember :P
- Cleaned up and iterated on shadergraphs. Got this ShaderGraphVariables feature into the project to get the spagetti under control thanks to local variables
- Iterated some on player model, added a dangling cup to backpack, shortened steps
- Added light probes for indirect player lighting (ditched the directional light to fake sand bounce light)
- Added some movement to sand
- Iterated some on structures, both close and distant
(hope the video shows :P)
Fabi_G
6 ·
Re: The Bi-Monthly Environment Art Challenge | November - December (99)
Hey the web demo is really cool! Double-jump is fun, can get all the way to the top.
Looks like the top of this vase is missing a cap:
Looks like the top of this vase is missing a cap:
Eric Chadwick
3 ·
Re: In Need of Feedback on Medieval Weapons
This is a really interesting concept with a lot of potential for environmental storytelling. (Broken items are abandoned then made useful again as the branches grow through them, branches continue to grow and strengthen the items as the player levels up, etc.)
As far as the sculpting goes: the branches and roots that weave the two katana blades together reads more like horn than wood. That's not necessarily a bad thing it's just the surface texture and shapes don't quite match what's in the ref in terms of scale and visual rhythm / repetition. The branches on the shield seem to be more in scale and read more like wood.
The wood sculpt on the hilt looks good for a first pass but the grain pattern on the wooden boards looks a bit out of scale: too much detail width wise and not enough depth detail. It's simultaneously too much and too little in terms of surface detail. There are a couple boards on the back that have really nice damage patterns, without all the high frequency noise, and those larger details look about right in terms of scale.
Smaller grain details could be sculpted in or they could be added to the textures. Rust pitting on the iron and steel components looks good.
Searching
for similar reference images, it looks like those are juniper trees?
They have really gnarly roots with this animal like skeletal quality to
them. Which seems to work well with the theme. Driftwood also has a
similar appearance and could be another good source of inspiration.
Assuming this is for game art and the goal is a semi-realistic asset: one of the big challenges of concepting props like this is balancing visual appeal, in-game functionality, and mechanical / thematic plausibility. Without any context on the world these are supposed to exist in it leaves a lot open to taste and that's fine but sometimes design constraints are helpful since it's easier to weed out ideas that don't fit the project goals.
One of the things that stands out is the katana having two blades that are back to back. It looks cool but it's kind of immersion breaking because it would be unwieldy and changes or limits how the sword would be used. If there's a lore reason for it then it's probably fine but from a design standpoint it's kind of unbalanced both visually and mechanically. Another thing that stands out is the round shield. If it's just part of a general sculpting study or concept exploration then that's fine. Thematically though it does weaken the presentation of the concept a bit because the katana is typically used without a shield.
As far as the branches and roots themselves: the biggest challenge is incorporating them into the objects in a way that makes sense from both a visual and mechanical design perspective. The holes in the katana blade open the question of who put them there and why? Is there a better way to connect the blade to the hilt? Would the branches and roots of a tree grow through or around something like a shield?
Some other things to consider: how does the player acquire these items? Do they have to cut them free from a branch that's still growing or did the tree die, leaving brittle branches that are easily snapped? Is there magic in the branches or roots? If there is, how can that be visually communicated?
Some other things to consider: how does the player acquire these items? Do they have to cut them free from a branch that's still growing or did the tree die, leaving brittle branches that are easily snapped? Is there magic in the branches or roots? If there is, how can that be visually communicated?
A lot of the branches and roots in the refs have this curved or spiral
growth pattern that can be incorporated into both concepts. Trees will
often grow around objects and it's almost impossible to remove them
without harvesting the tree.
Taking those sort of queues from the references really helps with both
balancing the visual design and the plausibility aspects of the
mechanical design.
(The double katana design could be improved by balancing out the size of the blades and increasing the size of the branches while also incorporating them as more of the handle itself. If the branches grew for long enough they'd completely fill the holes and that'd be a really solid attachment point.
Similarly, the shield would probably be split by the branches so it might make more sense to have the branches envelop the outer perimeter of the shield or just one corner with only a couple of smaller branches growing through an open knot hole or missing board.)
(The double katana design could be improved by balancing out the size of the blades and increasing the size of the branches while also incorporating them as more of the handle itself. If the branches grew for long enough they'd completely fill the holes and that'd be a really solid attachment point.
Similarly, the shield would probably be split by the branches so it might make more sense to have the branches envelop the outer perimeter of the shield or just one corner with only a couple of smaller branches growing through an open knot hole or missing board.)
It's also helpful to have references of similar objects to borrow
design queues from and to double check how things are built so the
mechanical details of the concept are at least visually accurate and
plausible. There's a couple of different sword designs that would work
well with the branch and root concept: particularly basket hilts, cup
hilts, and crown hilts.
Rattan and wicker crafts could be another good source of inspiration: both have a martial history and involve bending stiff plant material to make durable goods. Including shields, scabbards, armor, etc. Bonsai could also be another reference source for ideas on how to form the branches and roots around different things in an aesthetically pleasing way.
While it is possible to concept entirely in 3D, it may be worth exploring a few different ideas with basic 2D sketches, block out paint overs, or photo bashes first. Since it's a lot easier to get a feel for how everything will look when it's done and it's also a bit easier to make a lot of adjustments quickly then compare them, without having to commit to fully modeling any one of them.
Here's a few explorations of this concept using paint overs and photo bashing.
This first concept replaces the double Katana blades with a single Kris style blade that compliments the natural curvature of the branches and roots. The hilt also incorporates a bonsai technique where back is stripped off but the tree still grows along the live branch. Some kind of talisman or decorative trinkets could be added to the hilt, underneath the exposed branches, to further develop the story line as the player levels up or hits certain milestones in the game.
The second concept looks at a simplified katana that was repaired with whatever wood was available. This is sort of a found objects story path and also has the added bonus of blending in with nature in a way that's fairly inconspicuous. After all, from a distance this just looks like an old stick. Moss growth could be used to track the passage of time and a flowering vine could be used to track the player's progress.
The third concept pairs the sword with the shield. This is a basket hilt highland sword with a very rusty blade. Clearly the branches and roots have reclaimed this long lost sword. What happened to it's previous owner? How did it get here? Where will the player take it? Branch re-growth from a single bud could be used to track the player's power level and the blade would be polished as the player progresses.
The fourth concept is just a simple exploration of how the branches and roots could envelop a smaller buckler or a full size round shield. Here the wicker buckler is being absorbed by the driftwood. How does it work? Magic... Somehow that makes the buckler stronger. The larger round shield is wedged between the roots of a juniper tree. Clearly this has been here a while since there's a whole tree sprouting out of it. Or maybe the player is really high level. Who knows? Choose your own adventure. (These are both scaled 1:1 relative to each other. Bucklers tend to be fairly small.)
Keep up the good work!
FrankPolygon
4 ·
Re: What Are You Working On? (3D) 2025
my physics demo model is coming along, still getting some balls falling through things though.
Eric Chadwick
5 ·
Re: What Are You Working On? (3D) 2025
Charter Arms Undercoverette. Deсided to redo my old test task. Learned a lot from the tutorials by Adrien Roose.
ArtStation - Charter Arms Undercoverette .32
ArtStation - Charter Arms Undercoverette .32
tystnad
5 ·
Re: What Are You Working On? (3D) 2025
First time posting, please visit the artstation link for the wireframe and more detailed pics of the mesh itself. Thanks!
A wall for a modular building inside of UE5: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/kNbbDx
A wall for a modular building inside of UE5: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/kNbbDx
Re: What made you feel good today?
I went for a walk about in a place called highgate cemetery in London, I know its a bit morbid but its a very interesting place, I saw some feral parakeets which are growing in number, they definitely give London wild life a touch of colour, lol!
littleclaude
7 ·